Quote:
Originally Posted by junglejim
BUSH REDISTRIBUTED TO THE WEALTHY: An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows that President Bush's economic policies have "redistributed wealth to the richest Americans and left the majority with stagnating wages and declining household incomes." Looking at the effects of the first three Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that "the percentage by which the effective tax rate was cut for high-income families was nearly twice the rate cut for those in the middle of the income spectrum." Meanwhile, the administration's failure to raise the minimum wage coupled with its poor enforcement of federal wage and hour laws, trade agreements, and union rights further undermined the economic security of middle and lower-income Americans. Data prepared by the IRS from tax returns filed during the post-9/11 recovery (2002 to 2006) reveals that household income grew by $863 billion during the period. "The 15,000 families at the top of the income scale saw their annual incomes go from about $15 million a year to nearly $30 million," accounting for more than 25 percent of all of the growth in income for the entire country. The remaining 1.7 million families in the top 1 percent of households accounted for nearly another 50 percent. But while the "top 10 percent of families accounted for 95.3 percent of the nation's income growth between 2002 and 2006," the average real income for families in the bottom 90 percent of households increased by about $300 to a little less than $30,700."
MCCAIN WOULD DOUBLE DOWN: McCain claims that "in this country, we believe in spreading opportunity." But his Bush-like economic policies would only further America's income inequality. In fact, by extending Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy and proposing $175 billion in tax breaks to America's largest corporations, McCain's regressive economic agenda would redistribute wealth to the richest Americans during a period of stagnating wages and growing economic anxiety. The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would see only 12 percent of the benefit from McCain's plan to extend Bush's tax cuts, while over 100 million middle class households would receive nothing from McCain's proposal. Moreover, even though corporate profits increased by an estimated 66 percent between 2000 and 2006, McCain's plan to slash the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent would give even more benefits to America's richest corporations. According to a Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis of McCain's plan, the 200 largest companies stand to gain $45 billion a year from McCain's proposal. Highly profitable industries like energy companies and merchandising and retailing companies would receive billions from additional tax breaks.
MOBILITY THREATENED: America's income concentration is at its highest level since 1928. According to the OECD report, "the richest 10 percent earn an average of US$93,000 -- the highest level in the OECD. The poorest 10 percent earn an average of US$5,800 -- about 20 percent lower than the OECD average." But income inequality is cause for even more concern than the simple numbers suggest, since it also has an effect on mobility. In fact, just "7 percent of children born to parents in the bottom wealth quintile make it to the top quintile in adulthood," and "36 percent of children born to parents in the bottom wealth quintile remain in the bottom as adults." As OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria has pointed out, "greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve."
|
Numbers can show whatever you want them to show and considering the information coming from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, I don't believe half of what they say. The organization is quoted in Wikipedia as being "Liberal (read Democratic) Political Policy Advocacy Organization." Not surprising considering the the information quoted.
You point out the number of people (15,000 + 1.7 million) in the top percent, but lump the remaining 90% as being in the average. Are there no upper middle, middle and lower middle class that make a living wage? How large is the middle class as compared to the bottom? Included in the bottom are students, mothers working part time, elderly working to supplement their income, the 4% of chronically unemployed and not considered to really considering having a job. Do they not get included in the bottom 90% average?
The term "slash" was used to describe reducing the top wage earners from 35% to 25%. They already pay 50% of the taxes in the country. Is paying 45% or 40% fair to them? Imagine, 10% of American workers paying 40% to 50% of the tax load, HOW UNFAIR IS THAT. At that your 35% to 25% was corporate, not personal taxes and shouldn't be used in a comparison of personal income taxes.
Income inequality does not stifle the upward mobility of the populace. The inequality is more accurately a result of generational social/cultural upbringing. Grandparents and parents that grew up in social/cultural ignorance do not raise their children to progress in the opportunities available to them. How many blacks have been called "trying to be white" by their peers because they try to do well in school? How many grandparents, parents and children did not finish high school because they were never encouraged or made to do so.
Peoples from other cultures, particularly Asians, come to America and SUCCEED, because they and their parents put in the effort to take advantage of all our great nation offers. They work hard, learn the language, buy homes, start businesses, all with coming from poor starts that would make being on welfare seem rich. The difference? They don't expect the government to be their "Parent" and provide for them. They came here for opportunity and relish the chance to participate. They are "the talented and hard working people that get the rewards they deserve" because they did it the American way.